Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The question of terms to be applied as to the time within which further
drawings, details or instructions are to be given have been considered by the
courts although not in relation to a JCT contract. It has been stated that such
information must be given within a reasonable time, but it has been made
clear that this is a limited duty. Although the case was concerned with the
duty of an engineer, it is thought that the principle applies equally to
architects:
'What is a reasonable time does not depend solely upon the convenience
and financial interests of the [contractors]. No doubt it is in their interest
to have every detail cut and dried on the day the contract is signed, but
the contract does not contemplate that. It contemplates further drawings
and details being provided, and the engineer is to have a time to provide
them which is reasonable having regard to the point of view of him and
his staff and the point of view of the employer as well as the point of view
of the contractor.'
471
This is a common-sense business approach. Under JCT contracts the archi-
tect does not control the order of the works and, therefore, in interpreting
the phrase 'to enable the Contractor to carry out and complete the Works in
accordance with the Conditions' the contractor's viewpoint is paramount.
The architect must take into account the time necessary for the contractor to
organise adequate supplies of labour, materials and plant and to execute or
have executed any prefabrication or prepare materials in such time as to
ensure that these things are available on site having regard to his obligation
to complete the works in accordance with the contract.
The current date for completion must always be borne in mind when
analysing the particular circumstances. Vinelott J had this to say of the
provision of information clause in JCT 63 with its rather more substantial
clause calling for a 'specific written application' to be made:
'What the parties contemplated by these provisions was first that the
architect was not to be required to furnish instructions, drawings, etc.,
unreasonably far in advance from the date when the contractor would
require them in order to carry out the work efficiently nor to be asked for
them at a time which did not give him a reasonable opportunity to meet
the request. It is true that the words ''on a date'' grammatically govern
the date on which the application is made. But they are . . . capable of
being read as referring to the date on which the application is to be met.
That construction seems to me to give effect to the purpose of the
provision - merely to ensure that the architect is not troubled with
applications too far in advance of the time when they will be actually
needed by the contractor . . . and to ensure that he is not left with
insufficient time to prepare them. If that is right then there seems . . . to
be no reason why an application should not be made at the commence-
ment of the work for all the instructions etc. which the contractor can
471
Neodox
v.
Borough of Swinton & Pendlebury
(1958) 5 BLR 34.
